General Updates and News

[kinkydawg]

Originally Posted by DigitalNinja

The number 9 goes close to PPP

And using the argument about traveling to find parkland, when they want to just extend existing parkland is not a very good argument, what they need is more small parks not lots of big ones.

Originally Posted by fenwick16

The Province likely has intentions of developing it into an expanded health care facility which is just as important as more green space. I agree that there should be a good mix of parkland and urban land that can be developed. But restrictive height controls and excessive parkland does lead to a more spread out city that means more commuting for the residents. I think that there is a great deal of parkland in the HRM that is not well utilized. How about having easier access to McNab's Island and George's Island (hopefully George's Island will be ready in the next couple of years). Also having better access to Point Pleasant Park would be a plus (I don't think that there is a direct route from downtown).

It's fortunate that Manhattan had the will to protect it's parkland regardless of the money to be made, otherwise there'd be little or no Central Park. They could have built big sprawling schools and hospitals and bus shelters on it but someone long ago had the good sense and vision not to.
The Halifax Commons is hardly a big park anymore. We'll likely regret having built things on it once the Phil Paceys of this city are safely locked away in retirement homes or insane asylums and large towers are finally allowed to rise.

[Canadian_Bacon]

I don't get them to be honest. They don't like to see big buildings go up, but yet when big buildings go up it takes less space then a few smaller buildings. Thus making more land available to build a park.

I mean if you have 3 small buildings that house 500 people lets say. This takes up 3 pieces of land, lets say 1 acre each. Now, instead of that, lets say 1 large tower was built that housed those 500 people that took up an acre. Now you have those other 2 acre lots that can be used as something else... Like parkland. So why are they against bigger buildings... It seems like they contradict themselves to me.

They don't want to see big buildings go up, but yet they want more land for parks... This philosophy doesn't work.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by kinkydawg

It's fortunate that Manhattan had the will to protect it's parkland regardless of the money to be made, otherwise there'd be little or no Central Park. They could have built big sprawling schools and hospitals and bus shelters on it but someone long ago had the good sense and vision not to.
The Halifax Commons is hardly a big park anymore. We'll likely regret having built things on it once the Phil Paceys of this city are safely locked away in retirement homes or insane asylums and large towers are finally allowed to rise.

In Halifax, there is Point Pleasant Park, the Commons, and the Citadel just on peninsula land area which I am sure is smaller than the land area of Manhattan. I am sure that Halifax has a much higher number of green acres per person than Manhattan (likely on the order of 25 - 50 times more, my quick estimate).

Since you want to use Manhattan as a comparison, you must want to abolish height restrictions within the city?

[kinkydawg]

Originally Posted by Canadian_Bacon

I don't get them to be honest. They don't like to see big buildings go up, but yet when big buildings go up it takes less space then a few smaller buildings. Thus making more land available to build a park.

I mean if you have 3 small buildings that house 500 people lets say. This takes up 3 pieces of land, lets say 1 acre each. Now, instead of that, lets say 1 large tower was built that housed those 500 people that took up an acre. Now you have those other 2 acre lots that can be used as something else... Like parkland. So why are they against bigger buildings... It seems like they contradict themselves to me.

They don't want to see big buildings go up, but yet they want more land for parks... This philosophy doesn't work.

Their skewed logic doesn't work for me either. I think they long for the sepia coloured days of yesteryear when they were young and buildings were still made of twigs. Maybe they fear if big buildings are built, Halifax will be instantly transformed into Toronto where they'll be trampled on the sidewalks.

[kinkydawg]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

In Halifax, there is Point Pleasant Park, the Commons, and the Citadel just on peninsula land area which I am sure is smaller than the land area of Manhattan. I am sure that Halifax has a much higher number of green acres per person than Manhattan (likely on the order of 25 - 50 times more, my quick estimate).

Since you want to use Manhattan as a comparison, you must want to abolish height restrictions within the city?

You may be right, I haven't compared the stats on the two areas. Might be an intersting exercise.
Abolish height restrictions in Halifax? Oh hell, yeah.

[fenwick16]

I actually like having heritage buildings and lots of green space in Halifax. Even some reasonable height controls make sense. However, I would like to see more of a balance with more highrises like the Trillium and United Gulf Texpark towers permitted.

[kinkydawg]

The quality in some of these heritage buildings will never be matched today and they look great along side good contemporary architecture. I'm not sure about the purpose of these arbitrary height restrictions, aside from making sure the Dartmouth refinery is visable from the Hill. Would enjoy seeing the Trillium and Twisted Sisters grow taller. The skyline is looking like some massive lawn mower cut it off at about 85m.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

In Halifax, there is Point Pleasant Park, the Commons, and the Citadel just on peninsula land area which I am sure is smaller than the land area of Manhattan. I am sure that Halifax has a much higher number of green acres per person than Manhattan (likely on the order of 25 - 50 times more, my quick estimate).

Since you want to use Manhattan as a comparison, you must want to abolish height restrictions within the city?

On the other hand I would bet that the % of parkland in NYC on an acreage basis is higher there than in Halifax!

To me the relavent part of that comparison is more simply the fact that building height/density saves parkland (as others have noted) as evidenced by all kinds of other cities, NYC included, and that really is the part that seems to get missed by the Save the Whateva folks.

[JustinMacD]

If anyone cares, the re-design of the main entrance area of SMU has really taken off. It's going to look great once it's all finished. The whole front lawn is dug up right now and the new design looks completely different. Much more open and welcoming whereas the old front lawn was pretty ugly.

I think after they finish this, they're starting a parking garage in the parking lot on the corner of Inglis/Robie.

I also saw a few of the campus planners looking over the old TESL building on Inglis/Tower this morning as well. I'm hoping that this building comes down and it makes way for a bigger one. When you think about it, that's basically like the most visible corner of SMU. I'd also assume that the new parking garage would allow them to tear up a lot of the existing parking lots to build some new academic buildings and the new rink.

[kph06]

There was a drill rig on the Cunard site between Bishops landing and the new NSP offices. I couldn't stare too long or I would have crossed the yellow lane and caused an accident, so I didn't catch the name of the company doing the work. Looked to me like they were taking core samples for geotech work. Maybe the WDCL will be looking at this site sooner rather than later.

[someone123]

Here's a comparison of Manhattan and Halifax from Google Earth:



Central Park is much larger but Manhattan is obviously much more built up. Like I said, I think it would be nice for Halifax to have more parks but they aren't needed by the Commons - small parks distributed throughout the city would be more useful.

There's also lots of room to improve existing parks. The Public Gardens are pretty well-maintained but most of the others are not.

The Cunard site "conceptual design" has been mentioned for a while on the WDCL website. Not sure how far off development would actually be.

[DigitalNinja]

Originally Posted by someone123

Here's a comparison of Manhattan and Halifax from Google Earth:



Central Park is much larger but Manhattan is obviously much more built up. Like I said, I think it would be nice for Halifax to have more parks but they aren't needed by the Commons - small parks distributed throughout the city would be more useful.

There's also lots of room to improve existing parks. The Public Gardens are pretty well-maintained but most of the others are not.

The Cunard site "conceptual design" has been mentioned for a while on the WDCL website. Not sure how far off development would actually be.

I agree 100% more small parks would be nice than adding onto the commons.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by someone123

Here's a comparison of Manhattan and Halifax from Google Earth:

Central Park is much larger but Manhattan is obviously much more built up. Like I said, I think it would be nice for Halifax to have more parks but they aren't needed by the Commons - small parks distributed throughout the city would be more useful.

There's also lots of room to improve existing parks. The Public Gardens are pretty well-maintained but most of the others are not.

The Cunard site "conceptual design" has been mentioned for a while on the WDCL website. Not sure how far off development would actually be.

Thanks for the image for comparison. I started doing a compilation of the acreage for each but then gave up. Central Park in Manhattan was 843 acres whereas the acreage for Point Pleasant Park was around 240 acres, the Commons was 200 acres (although it doesn't look that big) and I couldn't find the acreage for the Citadel and many other small parks. I was too lazy to do a complete total. But I agree with the idea of several smaller parks.

[fairviewdude]

Originally Posted by someone123

What's usually forgotten is that there is an opportunity cost to parkland - money used to buy the land could have been used for other things (the QEH property is worth millions) and the land itself could have been used for other development.

The problem with the current situation is that this area is already fully of underused and underdeveloped parkland. The Public Gardens are great but are closed for half the year. The Commons are very poorly organized and do not have good modern amenities. The Grand Parade was a parking lot until recently and is still poorly planned. Point Pleasant Park hasn't been improved much post-Juan. The list goes on...

It makes far more sense to improve what the city has than it does to acquire more land without any particular goal in mind, further stretching maintenance budgets.

Don't Forget that the land QEH stands on was part of the Commons way back when.
Personally, I feel that it would be a waste of space to make that site parkland, when literally across the street is parkland. If it is to be developed as a hospital, then maybe incorporate some sort of healing gardens. I suspect patients and staff would find that very appealing and quite likely have some positive health impacts.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by fairviewdude

If it is to be developed as a hospital, then maybe incorporate some sort of healing gardens. I suspect patients and staff would find that very appealing and quite likely have some positive health impacts.

Plus, they could go there to smoke.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Plus, they could go there to smoke.

Intere4sting that you should say that. The Centre for Addictions and Mental Health (in Toronto) have a reversal, in that they will be allowing some smoking areas on hospital grounds, rather than having patients/visitors/staff smoking on sidewalks and private and public property. I don't support smoking, but until the sale of cigarettes is banned.... JET

[hfxtradesman]

While I can remember, there is someone buying up property on Almon St from Robie up to Windsor on the same side.(across fom Can. Post). Maybe some new devp. in the next few years.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by hfxtradesman

While I can remember, there is someone buying up property on Almon St from Robie up to Windsor on the same side.(across fom Can. Post). Maybe some new devp. in the next few years.

That is good news, that area along Almon could definitely become high density.

[bluenoser]

It could be the Gladstone Ridge developer? I remember talking to a manager there awhile ago and him mentioning that they would like to develop up to Almon.

On a side note, I used to really like that old Acadian Lines bus terminal on Almon but not so much these days.

[gmanupnorth]

Just wanted to chime in and see if anybody has any info on this development on Cedar Street

http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...0428ca1113.pdf

Thanks in advance,


Gordon